Des Hasler to leave the Bulldogs

“…...............and just can’t wait to buy into the new culture obviously the new coach is going to start.

Dah, did I get dat rite? Innat wat I'm sposed ta say?

Yeah, I can't wait to buy into a culture that I have no idea what it is cause I don't know who the coach is or what he's going to bring. Uhh yeah, it is what it is or..it isn't yet what its going to be, or something.
 
@ said:
" They're a strong board." Poor old Aaron doesn't have a clue.
Click to expand...

This is so hilarious. After Dib overspending on the cap, undermining the coach by giving the team his own little pep talk and hanging Des out to dry.

This is the guy who he has confidence in - http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/dib-hired-elias-to-recover-debt-20110331-1cnhr.html

How does Woodsy ever pass a HIA test? Give me Marina Go any day.
 
@ said:
Dib called Woods on Tuesday night after the Bulldogs’ decision was made public to inform him of the coaching situation.

- AAP

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/nrl/teams/broncos/nrl-daily-live-rolling-rugby-league-coverage-from-around-australia/news-story/9230bdea5bf6ade1b5be7b4947d5d974
Click to expand...

At least Unca Ray had the decency to ring Azza and consult with him, not like those bad people at Wests Tigers who left Mr 2040 to have to resort to having to say things such as "disappointed is a big word but I didn't hear from anyone within the club for 3 weeks", and " the first I heard about anything was on the TV whilst I was having a feed with me missus". Poor fella ain't got much book-learnin's behind him that is for sure.
Eagerly await more pearls of wisdom from the big dog, he will keep all WT fans amused with his dim-witted ramblings for the next few at least.
 
@ said:
Jim Dymock should get the gig, he's a good coach.
Click to expand...

He was promised the Gig back in 2011(12?),not sure who was on the Board at the time so the promise is probably worthless now.

I haven't seen it mentioned but apparently one of the reasons DH left Manly was the growing interference of the Eagle Angel girls in the running of the Football Club.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/eagles-angels-supporters-group-considers-parting-with-manly-20150730-ginrao.html
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
How was it non binding?

Supposedly signed a heads of agreement and not a contract.

Ah OK, cheers.

Like I said, a million to one that Dessie doesn't hire his favourite lawyer and take that to court. Dogs will be forced to settle, no doubts about it. Des might not get the full value of his "heads of agreement" but it will cost Dogs hundreds of thousands if not millions to either defeat him in court or reach an agreement.

You would expect that Des' lawyers and manager would have know at the time of "heads of agreement" extension that there might be blood in the water at end of season and not made an agreement that left Des totally out to dry.

BTW I had to look up what a HoA was, wikipedia:
_A set of heads of agreement, heads of terms or letter of intent is a non-binding document outlining the main issues relevant to a tentative (partnership or other) agreement.[1] A heads of agreement document will only be enforceable when it is adopted into a parent contract and subsequently agreed upon, unless otherwise stated. Until that point, a heads of agreement will not be legally binding (See Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corp of New Zealand Ltd [2002] 2 NZLR 433).\
\
However, such documents can be legally binding if the agreement document contains terms or language that expressly indicates the binding intention. Equally, a letter which contains no express indication of whether its terms were intended to be binding, can be found to be binding due to language used._

So we are being told now that Dogs announce Des' extension a few months ago and actually the terms and issues were written on a bit of toilet paper in lead pencil? How many other NRL contracts are done in this manner, and is this the same thing that Fifita had when he had that fight with the Dogs over revocation of contract?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Legally speaking, an agreement requires intent and consideration to be legally binding.

Consideration was obviously there with Hasler agreeing to coach, the reported 1.5mil per season.

Intent was there when the Dogs announced the signing and Hasler put pen to paper.

Agreement was obviously there.

The heads of agreement was legally binding no doubt about it. I think its just Dib saving his backside infront of the fans and there will be a payment organised to Hasler.
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Supposedly signed a heads of agreement and not a contract.

Ah OK, cheers.

Like I said, a million to one that Dessie doesn't hire his favourite lawyer and take that to court. Dogs will be forced to settle, no doubts about it. Des might not get the full value of his "heads of agreement" but it will cost Dogs hundreds of thousands if not millions to either defeat him in court or reach an agreement.

You would expect that Des' lawyers and manager would have know at the time of "heads of agreement" extension that there might be blood in the water at end of season and not made an agreement that left Des totally out to dry.

BTW I had to look up what a HoA was, wikipedia:
_A set of heads of agreement, heads of terms or letter of intent is a non-binding document outlining the main issues relevant to a tentative (partnership or other) agreement.[1] A heads of agreement document will only be enforceable when it is adopted into a parent contract and subsequently agreed upon, unless otherwise stated. Until that point, a heads of agreement will not be legally binding (See Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corp of New Zealand Ltd [2002] 2 NZLR 433).\
\
However, such documents can be legally binding if the agreement document contains terms or language that expressly indicates the binding intention. Equally, a letter which contains no express indication of whether its terms were intended to be binding, can be found to be binding due to language used._

So we are being told now that Dogs announce Des' extension a few months ago and actually the terms and issues were written on a bit of toilet paper in lead pencil? How many other NRL contracts are done in this manner, and is this the same thing that Fifita had when he had that fight with the Dogs over revocation of contract?

Legally speaking, an agreement requires intent and consideration to be legally binding.

Consideration was obviously there with Hasler agreeing to coach, the reported 1.5mil per season.

Intent was there when the Dogs announced the signing and Hasler put pen to paper.

Agreement was obviously there.

The heads of agreement was legally binding no doubt about it. I think its just Dib saving his backside infront of the fans and there will be a payment organised to Hasler.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

That's not the test for determining whether a Heads of Agreement is binding. It's whether the parties intended the agreement to be immediately binding having regard to the language contained in the Heads of Agreement and it's to be assessed objectively taking into account the circumstances giving rise to the agreement.
 
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
@ said:
Ah OK, cheers.

Like I said, a million to one that Dessie doesn't hire his favourite lawyer and take that to court. Dogs will be forced to settle, no doubts about it. Des might not get the full value of his "heads of agreement" but it will cost Dogs hundreds of thousands if not millions to either defeat him in court or reach an agreement.

You would expect that Des' lawyers and manager would have know at the time of "heads of agreement" extension that there might be blood in the water at end of season and not made an agreement that left Des totally out to dry.

BTW I had to look up what a HoA was, wikipedia:
_A set of heads of agreement, heads of terms or letter of intent is a non-binding document outlining the main issues relevant to a tentative (partnership or other) agreement.[1] A heads of agreement document will only be enforceable when it is adopted into a parent contract and subsequently agreed upon, unless otherwise stated. Until that point, a heads of agreement will not be legally binding (See Fletcher Challenge Energy Ltd v Electricity Corp of New Zealand Ltd [2002] 2 NZLR 433).\
\
However, such documents can be legally binding if the agreement document contains terms or language that expressly indicates the binding intention. Equally, a letter which contains no express indication of whether its terms were intended to be binding, can be found to be binding due to language used._

So we are being told now that Dogs announce Des' extension a few months ago and actually the terms and issues were written on a bit of toilet paper in lead pencil? How many other NRL contracts are done in this manner, and is this the same thing that Fifita had when he had that fight with the Dogs over revocation of contract?

Legally speaking, an agreement requires intent and consideration to be legally binding.

Consideration was obviously there with Hasler agreeing to coach, the reported 1.5mil per season.

Intent was there when the Dogs announced the signing and Hasler put pen to paper.

Agreement was obviously there.

The heads of agreement was legally binding no doubt about it. I think its just Dib saving his backside infront of the fans and there will be a payment organised to Hasler.

That's not the test for determining whether a Heads of Agreement is binding. It's whether the parties intended the agreement to be immediately binding having regard to the language contained in the Heads of Agreement and it's to be assessed objectively taking into account the circumstances giving rise to the agreement.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You basically re-said what I just did…

Every contract is assessed objectively, don't see your point?

In order for a heads of agreement to be legally binding it must contain the essential elements of a contract. Consideration, intent and offer/acceptance.

It must not expressly state that it is subject to being formed as a formal contract.

Haslers lawyers would not be stupid enough to allow him to sign a document stating that.

The Dogs objectively intended to be bound at the time they announced the signing.
 
Well the fun and games at the bulldogs continues. CEO gone, captain goneee, coach goneee. Board elections next year. Woodsy what have you done to yourself???
 
Woods should know where he stands in the pecking order now, as Foran was contacted last week prior to Hasler being shown the door, whilst poor Aaron was only rung afterwards.
 
@ said:
Well the fun and games at the bulldogs continues. CEO gone, captain goneee, coach goneee. Board elections next year. Woodsy what have you done to yourself???
Click to expand...

Hey captain coach CEO, sounds like a sweet deal for me lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Members online

Total: 1,020 (members: 37, guests: 983)
Back
Top